|
|
|
 |
|
Sprawl in Virginia: Is Dillon the Villain?
By Jesse J. Richardson, Jr
(Reprinted with permission from
Virginia Issues & Answers, Virginia Tech.)
Page
1
2
3
4
5
municipalities to exercise
any powers not denied to them by the Constitution, their charters,
or Virginia laws. The General Assembly rejected this request, as
well as all prior and subsequent suggestions for changes in Dillon’s
Rule. Municipalities generally disapprove of Dillon’s Rule. They
feel that the rule prevents them from adopting creative solutions
to local problems. Municipalities are often more aware of local
problems and, given free reign, may be able to fashion unique
solutions to fit the unique circumstances. The present system,
where local government officials or their hired lobbyists must
trek to Richmond each January to beg for legislation, appears,
at least in some respects to be wasteful and inefficient.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, municipalities bitterly complain
of "unfunded mandates." Namely, the General Assembly often requires
municipalities to carry out certain functions. If the state
legislators fail to give municipalities the ability to raise revenues
to pay the cost of this new requirement, then municipalities must
do more with the same resources. In some cases (like the real
property tax), municipality officials could raise the local tax rate
for more revenue. Dillon’s Rule forecloses the possibility of
raising some taxes or creating a new, more palatable tax.
In other words, the General Assembly sets out which taxes
municipalities may impose, how they may impose them and, in some
cases, the tax rate. Thus, real estate taxes and personal property
taxes provide the greatest share of local revenue. However, the
General Assembly recently voted to phase in elimination of the
personal property tax. This loss of revenue was not offset by the
power to impose a new tax. If municipalities wish to offset this
loss of revenue, they must raise an existing tax (perhaps
politically unpopular), get additional revenues from the state, or
cut services. Note, however, that some localities in Northern
Virginia possess the power to impose a local income tax. None of
these municipalities have exercised this right.
Legislators in Virginia feel that the present system works
satisfactorily. They do not wish to disrupt the system. If courts
strictly interpret rules, the General Assembly may act to reverse
the court by enacting legislation. The legislators also prefer
to give new powers to a few municipalities at first, to "test"
them. If the grant of power is successful, then the legislature
gives the power to all municipalities. In some states that have
home rule, the legislature has passed large numbers of laws
prohibiting municipalities from engaging a wide variety of
practices. That approach hampers municipalities even more than
Dillon’s Rule. Some commentators feel that Virginia, despite
being a Dillon's Rule state, has granted relatively broad powers
to local governments. Some view Dillon's Rule as a benefit to
local government officials by allowing them to use the rule as
an excuse to not do things that the public wants (which may also
raise taxes, which the public does not want). Finally, control
from the state level ensures more uniformity, which encourages
economic growth by assuring companies that requirements like
business licenses and methods of taxation will be consistent
throughout the state.
Does Dillon's Rule Prevent Localities from Managing Growth?
Dillon's Rule is often named as a major reason that local
governments fail to address sprawl. In short, local government
officials claim that their "hands are tied". Obviously,
Dillon's Rule limits the tools which local governments may
employ to control growth. This limitation may promote sprawl.
Again this legislative session, local governments, including
a coalition of 24 high-growth communities across the state,
pleaded with the state legislator for grants of powers to
control growth. Once again, these pleas were rejected. The
reactions of legislators and local government officials
indicate a deep schism between the state and local governments.
"None of [the state lawmakers] have a clue how to get out of
these situation," said Loudoun County supervisor James G.
Burton. On the other side of the aisle, State Senator John
Watkins, opined that he was not "going to give the local
governments a blank check to slam the door on development
like this".
(continued) Page
1
2
3
4
5
|
|
|
